Okay, so here's a question that may be super naive, but I've been meaning to ask it for a while. What makes a deviation from a poetic structure right or wrong? I know that if we were to make some of the semantic, syntactical, or structural amendments that many authors already do, we would be reprimanded. Not so much but Br Tom, and it seems to get less as we get older, but it still seems that if a more established writer were to make the same changes that they would be more widely accepted. Who decides if an irregular line really adds to the poem or detracts, really nails it or misses badly? Does this play into the lack of definition for poetry? Help. - kco-c
I really think it has a little bit to do with the writer and a lot to do with the reader. As an art, poetry can be interpreted differently by different people. What may seem a beautiful poem (Beowulf) by some (literature majors) may seem like torture for others (me). So, irregular lines and deviations from form are up to the author, and as always, it's pretty much up to the reader as to whether it sounds good or not. But you have a point, that more established writers are less likely to be criticized for deviating from the form. - mmi-c Feb 27, 2008
I found an interesting quote online that relates to this. Benjamin Franklin wrote it in 1741 in Poor Richard's Almanack. "Beauty, like supreme dominion Is but supported by opinion." (taken from: http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/59100.html) What is beautiful? Who has ultimate rule and authority? Franklin thinks it to be a matter of opinion. I don't think there is really anyone that can shake a finger at a poet and say that they aren't using the correct structure or format for a poem. In Latin class, we were talking about poetic licenses, which enable a poet to stray from the normal standard to meet their own needs. It's something that a poet basically claims for himself. Besides, poetry is only what poets make it, whether new or already accepted. There may be people who read a poem and are very critical about it, but I don't think there is anyone who deems a poem right or wrong. There are no old men sitting in a room all couped up somewhere making these decisions. A poet, as an artist, should expect both crticism and praise; it's all part of it, and they know it. Poetry is art. It touches some people, others just don't know how to appreciate it.- AGe-c Feb 28, 2008
To me a deviation from a poem can be good or bad depending on the purpose that the author intends for it. If the deviation is merely because they could not find a way to conform the poem to a certain form, then it's bad because that is just pure laziness. However, if the deviation from a poetic form has a purpose or adds to poems meaning, then it can be considered good. Also, opinions of poetic deviation are purely subjective, so everyone has an opportunity to decide whether the deviations can be deemed "good" or bad." There isn't some grand standard by which deviations can be measured- MSu-c Feb 28, 2008
To be honest, I too have wondered for some time how some poets are able to deviate from poetic form so drastically and yet it isn't considered wrong. As I experience more poetry, it seems to move from everything that I have been taught in the past. When I was young, teachers taught that a poem should have a certain amount of lines, rhyme scheme, or even particular word usage. If the poem did not have these charactersitics, it was wrong. So why is it that these poets are able to move away from traditional poetic forms? I think it's because poetry is an art and should not be limited to a specific format. I agree with MSu that poems are subjective, some may consider a poem phenomenal while another may completely misunderstand its meaning. There really isn't a standard for how much a poem can deviate from its original form. - KSm-c Feb 28, 2008
Same as KSm, when I was in grade school I remember that our poetry needed to have certain number of lines, certain number of rhymes etc. But I think that was to teach us the basics. Even with art class there are rules in the beginning. Once you learn the rules, then you can play around with them and push the limits. You can't really tell a seventh grader that "poetry really has not rules, it just requires a certain attention." One they aren't mature enough to even think about what that means and two they would just go off and write something random. As we get older it seems like we learn more of the "realy rules"--that poetry is what you want it to be. There are forms, but they can be pushed. I don't think there is a "wrong way" to deviate from the form, it all in the eye of the beholder. - adi-c Feb 28, 2008
I think this depends on both the skill of the poet and the purpose of the deviation. The reason novice poets might deviate from the form could be because of their lack of understanding of the form, or simply because they couldn't think of another way to say what they wanted to say. The reason a more professional poet would deviate from the form would be to draw attention to that specific changed line etc. But the way people view the deviations depends on the skill level of the poet. People are more likely to criticize the novice poet for spoiling the poem by changing it, and then to praise the professional for making a better form out of an older one. But what makes a deviation useful and beneficial is the purpose for it. It's been driven into our heads by Mrs. Mueller last year that writing is intentional. If a poet deviated with the intention of fulfilling a purpose that has good founding, then the deviation is good and meaningful. If the poet deviated without direction, then the deviation is a flaw. - LDo-c Feb 28, 2008
I always found it amusing when we would open up our poetry books to a new chapter and the first poem given to us deviated drastically. The rhyme scheme was supposed to be abab but they went abac... uh oh!!! I just found it intriguing that the authors of our poetry book placed some of these deviated poems right after the description.
I am still struggling with deviation and how a famous author can deviate, but when I deviate my grade goes down. And I think LDo said it perfectly, the author had the intention of doing it. Most of the time, I believe that some authors just thought, 'ooops, I can't continue with the form, oh well no one will notice." But now I see it differently. The authors of the poems in our poetry book where chosen to be in this book because they wrote with a purpose. They wrote how they wanted to. They had an intention with every beat, every word, every rhyme. If it strayed from the form, it was ok, because it just emphasized their point even more.
And I agree, there are no official "rules" in writing poetry. If there are, please show me. I would like to read them. - szd-c Feb 28, 2008
I think that the only reason we are scolded for deviating is because we are amateurs, i.e. we don't do it right. When it adds to the poem, and contributes to what the author is trying to get across, then it should be okay. As long as it does not distract the reader from the point of the poem or its message, it should be implemented, in my opinion. I also think that LDo had a good idea when she said it had to do with skill. Not everyone can master the art of poetry - which is probably why few make a career of it, and even fewer are successful. Anyway, my point is that if you don't know what you are doing, or if you are just doing it so that you can say you did it, you shouldn't do it. It should help, not hinder. - Sha-c Feb 28, 2008
I guess that is one of my pet peeves about school (sorry if this becomes more of a rant than a post). We read all these different poets who deviate from the set structure in their poems in order to fulfill their particular artistic expression, but whenever we have to recreate a form style we get marked down if we deviate (most of the time). I understand that they are experienced poets and knowledgeable of the art form and thus feel free to deviate from it. But shouldn't we be allowed to experiment too, even if we are amateurs and are not likely to take poetry as a profession? I know we don't truly know the art form, to any degree, but isn't that limit our possible poetry expression? What does everyone else think? - AHa-c Feb 28, 2008
A form is only a form if everyone decides it is.
Well, we discussed new forms of poetry earlier in the year, and I would think that successful deviations are similar. Basically, it depends on if your deviation gains popularity or not. If other people read it and like it, then whoo hoo. You made a wonderful deviation. If no one ever likes it, or follows suit, then I guess whatever you did was not acceptable.
It seems kind of silly that an art form based solely on the opinions/feelings of the authors depends upon the mass populace to tell them if they are right or wrong. Anyways, real writers know what they are doing. - PMi-c Mar 3, 2008
That's a really interesting question; we do seem to get more freedom in our writing as we get older. It's as if by writing well all these yeras, we've earned the right to use more creative forms; it's like your parents giving you a later curfew as you get older because you're more mature. I remember last year when Ms. Mueller would ask us to experiment with our writing, and tell her that we're experimenting--she wanted to decide whether or not what we were experimenting with was used correctly. But who decides what is the right type of experimentation? Why is that when someone famous deviates it is seen to be meaningful and we look for the purpose in it, but when one of us does it, it's probably wrong? It doesn't really make sense, maybe it's because published authors have gone through it all already, and now they get to do what they want because they paid their dues. Although that's all fine and well, I think that we should be able to experiment too, because we are trying to figure out what works for us and maybe the standard form isn't the best way to say something. I don't think anyone should be limited when creating art--it's an expression of creativity and it shouldn't be restricted. - dru-c Mar 6, 2008
I have mixed feelings about the deviations because sometimes I find myself liking them, but other times I think they just take away from a good poem. It is all in how the poet presents a deviation and what the deviation is. I think sometimes a deviation can we a welcomed break from the same form over and over; however, sometimes it is a disruptance in the middle of an enjoyable poem. I am always open to a deviation because I think that only through deviations can we get a true sense of how talented the poet is. I think it is easier to just follow a form than it is to follow a form and add you own twist that still makes sense with the topic and the form.- mha-c Mar 10, 2008
KCo, I completely understand your random question because I have asked myself this same thing many times too. I'm pretty sure we even brought it up in class because we had to write one of the poems for homework and we asked how much we could stretch the form. In a previous post I was discussing the poem, "We Real Cool." And I know that this poem is not in the style that we are studying, but it is a great example of an extreme deviation. I also realized that I could never write a poem under a certain style with such a drastic deviation and still receive a decent grade on it, but I think this is simply because I am not an established poet. I think poets can do this because they are very good at what they do and therefore have the creative ability to make a poem like that work. Is it wrong? No, but it does bring into question then what the purpose of styles really are if poets just stretch them and make them their own. - ptr-c Mar 10, 2008
I agree with Pmi when it comes to this topic. A form is only a form if everyone thinks it is. There's no limits to poetry as we've recently discovered. Coming out of that nursery rhyme shell may not be the easiest thing to do, but it's not reality inside that bubble. I think that I've just recently had an epiphany that, in all honesty, the world of poetry has much more unrhymed poetry than rhymed poetry. So many people around the world have created such a vast array of styles and methods of poetry that it would make anyone's head spin. To think that a simple four line stanza has the potential to be molded and crafted into millions of different patters, shapes, meanings, and visions is just phenomenal. A deviation from a poem is nothing more than being unique, establishing your own ground for that style. With every poem that we write, it's as if a marking goes down in history that no one else can write the same way because we've all added a particular flair. - bzw-c Mar 11, 2008
I think that it completely up to the poet. In class today, we were talking about Emily Dickinson. In the poem that we read there were random words that were capitalized in the middle of the lines and the and there were dashes at the end of and in the middle of many of the lines. The structure of her poem was completely unique, none of the other poems that we read today were written in the same form. There was no one who was telling Dickinson that the way she way writing her poems was wrong, instead there are many people who analyze her original hand written transcripts all day. She chose her structure and people accept it even though sometimes it doesn't make sense at all. I think that this is how it goes for many poems, the poet decides the structure of their poem and it is accepted and examined by its readers. It is their piece of art and I think they are able to create it in whatever structure they choose. - kfr-c Mar 11, 2008
You will get different reactions from different readers and there are many ways to measure wheather the structural amendment really added something to the poem but to me the simplest way to see if a structural or formaic distinction between your poem and the original form is good or not is if the structural amendment was made to advance the poem's purpose or was it made to just make it easier to write the poem since the original form is too hard. The first one is kinda tricky because what may be obvious to you may get completely lost on your readers as to why you made that change in the poem's structure and even if it does get lost on most of your readers it still may be a good structural change because the readers who understood it were able to dive further into your poems meaning than they would have been before. Obviously in the second question it is easy to see if you truly made the change to advance your poem or to just make it easier to write and thus take away meaning from the form and you poem.
While there are many other ways to see how effective your poem structure change is they really almost have to be treated on a case by case basis because there are just so many ways to change the poem's structure to fit so many different meanings that can be interpreted in so many ways that the poem almost has to be in front of someone in order for them to judge it nay or yay. - DGr-c
I think that the definitions of certain types of poems help out by aiding in reading the poem. However, I don't feel that the definitions given to us in the book are concrete and can not be tampered with. I think there is room for authors to explore and think outside of the box. That's what adds variety. If all poems followed the same form, they would all start to appear to be the same. In poetry, being different is a good thing. It gives the poem extra flair that another poem may not have; those are the poems that stick out from the rest of them. Also, I don't really mind if poems don't fit the definiton completely. I mean it gives us somehthing to argue about in class and the debate can get quite heated.- aja-c Mar 13, 2008
I really think it has a little bit to do with the writer and a lot to do with the reader. As an art, poetry can be interpreted differently by different people. What may seem a beautiful poem (Beowulf) by some (literature majors) may seem like torture for others (me). So, irregular lines and deviations from form are up to the author, and as always, it's pretty much up to the reader as to whether it sounds good or not. But you have a point, that more established writers are less likely to be criticized for deviating from the form. -
I found an interesting quote online that relates to this. Benjamin Franklin wrote it in 1741 in Poor Richard's Almanack. "Beauty, like supreme dominion Is but supported by opinion." (taken from: http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/59100.html) What is beautiful? Who has ultimate rule and authority? Franklin thinks it to be a matter of opinion. I don't think there is really anyone that can shake a finger at a poet and say that they aren't using the correct structure or format for a poem. In Latin class, we were talking about poetic licenses, which enable a poet to stray from the normal standard to meet their own needs. It's something that a poet basically claims for himself. Besides, poetry is only what poets make it, whether new or already accepted. There may be people who read a poem and are very critical about it, but I don't think there is anyone who deems a poem right or wrong. There are no old men sitting in a room all couped up somewhere making these decisions. A poet, as an artist, should expect both crticism and praise; it's all part of it, and they know it. Poetry is art. It touches some people, others just don't know how to appreciate it.-
To me a deviation from a poem can be good or bad depending on the purpose that the author intends for it. If the deviation is merely because they could not find a way to conform the poem to a certain form, then it's bad because that is just pure laziness. However, if the deviation from a poetic form has a purpose or adds to poems meaning, then it can be considered good. Also, opinions of poetic deviation are purely subjective, so everyone has an opportunity to decide whether the deviations can be deemed "good" or bad." There isn't some grand standard by which deviations can be measured-
To be honest, I too have wondered for some time how some poets are able to deviate from poetic form so drastically and yet it isn't considered wrong. As I experience more poetry, it seems to move from everything that I have been taught in the past. When I was young, teachers taught that a poem should have a certain amount of lines, rhyme scheme, or even particular word usage. If the poem did not have these charactersitics, it was wrong. So why is it that these poets are able to move away from traditional poetic forms? I think it's because poetry is an art and should not be limited to a specific format. I agree with MSu that poems are subjective, some may consider a poem phenomenal while another may completely misunderstand its meaning. There really isn't a standard for how much a poem can deviate from its original form.
-
Same as KSm, when I was in grade school I remember that our poetry needed to have certain number of lines, certain number of rhymes etc. But I think that was to teach us the basics. Even with art class there are rules in the beginning. Once you learn the rules, then you can play around with them and push the limits. You can't really tell a seventh grader that "poetry really has not rules, it just requires a certain attention." One they aren't mature enough to even think about what that means and two they would just go off and write something random. As we get older it seems like we learn more of the "realy rules"--that poetry is what you want it to be. There are forms, but they can be pushed. I don't think there is a "wrong way" to deviate from the form, it all in the eye of the beholder.
-
I think this depends on both the skill of the poet and the purpose of the deviation. The reason novice poets might deviate from the form could be because of their lack of understanding of the form, or simply because they couldn't think of another way to say what they wanted to say. The reason a more professional poet would deviate from the form would be to draw attention to that specific changed line etc. But the way people view the deviations depends on the skill level of the poet. People are more likely to criticize the novice poet for spoiling the poem by changing it, and then to praise the professional for making a better form out of an older one. But what makes a deviation useful and beneficial is the purpose for it. It's been driven into our heads by Mrs. Mueller last year that writing is intentional. If a poet deviated with the intention of fulfilling a purpose that has good founding, then the deviation is good and meaningful. If the poet deviated without direction, then the deviation is a flaw.
-
I always found it amusing when we would open up our poetry books to a new chapter and the first poem given to us deviated drastically. The rhyme scheme was supposed to be abab but they went abac... uh oh!!! I just found it intriguing that the authors of our poetry book placed some of these deviated poems right after the description.
I am still struggling with deviation and how a famous author can deviate, but when I deviate my grade goes down. And I think LDo said it perfectly, the author had the intention of doing it. Most of the time, I believe that some authors just thought, 'ooops, I can't continue with the form, oh well no one will notice." But now I see it differently. The authors of the poems in our poetry book where chosen to be in this book because they wrote with a purpose. They wrote how they wanted to. They had an intention with every beat, every word, every rhyme. If it strayed from the form, it was ok, because it just emphasized their point even more.
And I agree, there are no official "rules" in writing poetry. If there are, please show me. I would like to read them.
-
I think that the only reason we are scolded for deviating is because we are amateurs, i.e. we don't do it right. When it adds to the poem, and contributes to what the author is trying to get across, then it should be okay. As long as it does not distract the reader from the point of the poem or its message, it should be implemented, in my opinion. I also think that LDo had a good idea when she said it had to do with skill. Not everyone can master the art of poetry - which is probably why few make a career of it, and even fewer are successful. Anyway, my point is that if you don't know what you are doing, or if you are just doing it so that you can say you did it, you shouldn't do it. It should help, not hinder. -
I guess that is one of my pet peeves about school (sorry if this becomes more of a rant than a post). We read all these different poets who deviate from the set structure in their poems in order to fulfill their particular artistic expression, but whenever we have to recreate a form style we get marked down if we deviate (most of the time). I understand that they are experienced poets and knowledgeable of the art form and thus feel free to deviate from it. But shouldn't we be allowed to experiment too, even if we are amateurs and are not likely to take poetry as a profession? I know we don't truly know the art form, to any degree, but isn't that limit our possible poetry expression? What does everyone else think? -
A form is only a form if everyone decides it is.
Well, we discussed new forms of poetry earlier in the year, and I would think that successful deviations are similar. Basically, it depends on if your deviation gains popularity or not. If other people read it and like it, then whoo hoo. You made a wonderful deviation. If no one ever likes it, or follows suit, then I guess whatever you did was not acceptable.
It seems kind of silly that an art form based solely on the opinions/feelings of the authors depends upon the mass populace to tell them if they are right or wrong. Anyways, real writers know what they are doing. -
That's a really interesting question; we do seem to get more freedom in our writing as we get older. It's as if by writing well all these yeras, we've earned the right to use more creative forms; it's like your parents giving you a later curfew as you get older because you're more mature. I remember last year when Ms. Mueller would ask us to experiment with our writing, and tell her that we're experimenting--she wanted to decide whether or not what we were experimenting with was used correctly. But who decides what is the right type of experimentation? Why is that when someone famous deviates it is seen to be meaningful and we look for the purpose in it, but when one of us does it, it's probably wrong? It doesn't really make sense, maybe it's because published authors have gone through it all already, and now they get to do what they want because they paid their dues. Although that's all fine and well, I think that we should be able to experiment too, because we are trying to figure out what works for us and maybe the standard form isn't the best way to say something. I don't think anyone should be limited when creating art--it's an expression of creativity and it shouldn't be restricted. -
I have mixed feelings about the deviations because sometimes I find myself liking them, but other times I think they just take away from a good poem. It is all in how the poet presents a deviation and what the deviation is. I think sometimes a deviation can we a welcomed break from the same form over and over; however, sometimes it is a disruptance in the middle of an enjoyable poem. I am always open to a deviation because I think that only through deviations can we get a true sense of how talented the poet is. I think it is easier to just follow a form than it is to follow a form and add you own twist that still makes sense with the topic and the form.-
KCo, I completely understand your random question because I have asked myself this same thing many times too. I'm pretty sure we even brought it up in class because we had to write one of the poems for homework and we asked how much we could stretch the form. In a previous post I was discussing the poem, "We Real Cool." And I know that this poem is not in the style that we are studying, but it is a great example of an extreme deviation. I also realized that I could never write a poem under a certain style with such a drastic deviation and still receive a decent grade on it, but I think this is simply because I am not an established poet. I think poets can do this because they are very good at what they do and therefore have the creative ability to make a poem like that work. Is it wrong? No, but it does bring into question then what the purpose of styles really are if poets just stretch them and make them their own. -
I agree with Pmi when it comes to this topic. A form is only a form if everyone thinks it is. There's no limits to poetry as we've recently discovered. Coming out of that nursery rhyme shell may not be the easiest thing to do, but it's not reality inside that bubble. I think that I've just recently had an epiphany that, in all honesty, the world of poetry has much more unrhymed poetry than rhymed poetry. So many people around the world have created such a vast array of styles and methods of poetry that it would make anyone's head spin. To think that a simple four line stanza has the potential to be molded and crafted into millions of different patters, shapes, meanings, and visions is just phenomenal. A deviation from a poem is nothing more than being unique, establishing your own ground for that style. With every poem that we write, it's as if a marking goes down in history that no one else can write the same way because we've all added a particular flair. -
I think that it completely up to the poet. In class today, we were talking about Emily Dickinson. In the poem that we read there were random words that were capitalized in the middle of the lines and the and there were dashes at the end of and in the middle of many of the lines. The structure of her poem was completely unique, none of the other poems that we read today were written in the same form. There was no one who was telling Dickinson that the way she way writing her poems was wrong, instead there are many people who analyze her original hand written transcripts all day. She chose her structure and people accept it even though sometimes it doesn't make sense at all. I think that this is how it goes for many poems, the poet decides the structure of their poem and it is accepted and examined by its readers. It is their piece of art and I think they are able to create it in whatever structure they choose. -
You will get different reactions from different readers and there are many ways to measure wheather the structural amendment really added something to the poem but to me the simplest way to see if a structural or formaic distinction between your poem and the original form is good or not is if the structural amendment was made to advance the poem's purpose or was it made to just make it easier to write the poem since the original form is too hard. The first one is kinda tricky because what may be obvious to you may get completely lost on your readers as to why you made that change in the poem's structure and even if it does get lost on most of your readers it still may be a good structural change because the readers who understood it were able to dive further into your poems meaning than they would have been before. Obviously in the second question it is easy to see if you truly made the change to advance your poem or to just make it easier to write and thus take away meaning from the form and you poem.
While there are many other ways to see how effective your poem structure change is they really almost have to be treated on a case by case basis because there are just so many ways to change the poem's structure to fit so many different meanings that can be interpreted in so many ways that the poem almost has to be in front of someone in order for them to judge it nay or yay.
-
I think that the definitions of certain types of poems help out by aiding in reading the poem. However, I don't feel that the definitions given to us in the book are concrete and can not be tampered with. I think there is room for authors to explore and think outside of the box. That's what adds variety. If all poems followed the same form, they would all start to appear to be the same. In poetry, being different is a good thing. It gives the poem extra flair that another poem may not have; those are the poems that stick out from the rest of them. Also, I don't really mind if poems don't fit the definiton completely. I mean it gives us somehthing to argue about in class and the debate can get quite heated.-